DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavalieri (US 2010/0230377 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Cavalieri teaches a polyolefin composition (Abstract), comprising between 70 and 98 wt% of a propylene homopolymer or copolymer and from 2 to 30 wt% of a butene-1 copolymer (Abstract), and additionally containing a clarifying agent ([0053]) including acetals of sorbitols ([0055]) wherein the clarifying agents are preferably included in amounts ranging from 100 to 2,000 ppm with respect to the amount of the propylene homopolymer or copolymer ([0057]). This range is equivalent to a range of 0.01 to 0.2 wt% with respect to the amount of propylene homopolymer or copolymer, and since said propylene polymer is included in amounts ranging from 70 to 98 wt%, the amount of clarifying agent within the inventive composition ranges from about 0.007 to about 0.196 wt% of the entire composition. In each case except that of the butene-1 copolymer, the compositional ranges taught by Cavalieri overlap the claimed ranges, establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
In the case of the butene-1 copolymer, the newly amended claim 1 requires that the compositional amount thereof ranges “from 0.01% to 0.5% by weight,” which the range taught by Cavalieri falls outside of. Nevertheless, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05.I.). In this case, the prior art range differs form the claimed range by less than 2 wt%. Furthermore, Cavalieri is silent with regard to any significant impact imposed by a relatively small difference such as the one separating the claimed and prior art ranges. Finally, the instant Specification fails to indicate any granularity or criticality with regard to a precision of compositional amounts of the butene-1 copolymer; to the contrary, the instant Specification only includes comparative examples wherein the butene-1 copolymer is completely absent (c.f. p. 32, Table 4 of the instant Specification, where the only comparative example, Comparative Example 1, is devoid of a butene-1 copolymer while the inventive Examples 1-4 all contain 0.065 wt% of the butene-1 copolymer.
The range of 2-30 wt% taught by Cavalieri therefore renders obvious the claimed range of “0.01 to 0.5%.”
Regarding claim 2, Cavalieri teaches that the composition preferably has haze values equal to or lower than 25% ([0068]), which encompasses the claimed range of “equal to or lower than 20%,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 4, as described above, Cavalieri teaches the incorporation of about 0.007-0.196 wt% of clarifying agent, and 2 to 30 wt% of the butene-1 copolymer. These components read on the claimed components “C)” and “B),” respectively, as described above. Cavalieri therefore teaches a ratio of these two components ranging from about 0.0002 to about 0.98, which overlaps the claimed range of “0.5 to 4,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 5, Cavalieri teaches that the inventive composition preferably has a melt flow index (measured at 230°C and 2.16 kg) ranging from 1 to 100 g/10 min ([0069]), which falls within the claimed range of “0.1 to 400 g/10 min,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 6, Cavalieri teaches that the propylene-based polymer may be a propylene homopolymer or copolymer (Abstract), and that the butene-1-based polymer is a butene-1-copolymer (Abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Cavalieri further teaches that the propylene polymer has:
a comonomer content ranging from 0.5 to 15 wt% ([0019]) and that the comonomer is ethylene or hexene-1 ([0019]);
a polydispersity index equal to or higher than 4 ([0020]);
a melt flow rate of 0.1 to 100 g/10 min ([0021]);
a xylene-insoluble fraction of greater than 85 wt% at room temperature ([0022]);
and a flexural modulus higher than 600 MPa ([0023]).
In each case, the ranges taught by Cavalieri overlap or are identical to the claimed ranges, establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Regarding claim 8, Cavalieri teaches that the butene-1 copolymer has a melt flow rate at 190°C and with a load of 2.16 kg ranging from 1 to 100 g/10 min ([0060]), which falls within the claimed range of “1 to 3000 g/10 min,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 9, Cavalieri teaches that the butene-1 copolymer has a comonomer content most preferably ranging from 0.5 to 15 wt% ([0008]). In copolymers containing butene-1 and either ethylene or hexene-1 (the preferred comonomers of both Cavalieri and the instant specification, see [0019] of Cavalieri and instant claim 7), this teaching equates to ranges of about 1.01-26.34 mol% of ethylene or about 0.34-10.55 mol% of hexene-1. In each case, the molar percentages of the preferred comonomers of Cavalieri overlap/encompass the claimed range of “0.5% to 4.0% by mole,” establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
Regarding claim 10, Cavalieri does not directly specify the claimed characteristics of the inventive butene-1 copolymer. However, Cavalieri does specify that the butene-1 copolymer is a relatively isotactic polymer, with an isotacticity index of at least 60% ([0058]), which overlaps the range contemplated by the instant Specification ([0066]). Furthermore, as described above, Cavalieri teaches the specific incorporation of butene-1, alongside preferred monomers ethylene and/or hexene-1 ([0019]), which are those preferred by the instant application (c.f. claim 7).
Cavalieri further teaches that the butene-1 copolymer may be produced using a catalyst obtained by contacting a metallocene with an alumoxane ([0065]), which aligns with the reaction catalyst contemplated by the instant Application (c.f. instant Specification at [0078]).
Therefore, Cavalieri teaches the use of a butene-1 copolymer which is structurally identical to the claimed butene copolymer, containing all of the same components in all of the same compositional amounts, and which is produced using a substantially similar catalyst, and which shares at least one other physiochemical characteristic (overlapping crystallinity index). Products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. The claimed characteristics will therefore necessarily be present within the teachings of Cavalieir, as applied above.
Regarding claim 11, Cavalieri teaches that acetals of sorbitols are suitable clarifying agents ([0055]), which reads on the claimed “derivatives of polyols” because sorbitol is a polyol.
Regarding claim 12, Cavalieri teaches the specific use of C1-C8-alkyl-substituted sorbitol derivatives such as methyl- and ethyl- dibenzylidene sorbitols ([0055]), which read on “di(alkylbenzylidene) sorbitols” from the claimed list.
Regarding claim 13, Cavalieri teaches molded articles of the inventive composition ([0077]).
Regarding claim 14, Cavalieri teaches reduced haze in the inventive composition ([0002]), and teaches all of the compositional limitations, as described above.
Regarding claim 15, Cavalieri teaches an inventive example comprising a mixture of a propylene homopolymer (designated as PP-1, [0107], which reads on the claimed “propylene polymer”) and a propylene/ethylene copolymer (designated as PP-2, [0121]) ([0126]). PP-2 from this inventive example reads on the claimed “ethylene copolymer” because it is a polymer which contains ethylene, and because the instant Specification states that the claimed “heterophasic polyolefin composition A)” may be formed from a mixture of propylene homopolymer and a copolymer of ethylene with propylene ([0052]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that prior art document Cavalieri fails to teach or suggest a composition comprising between 0.01 and 0.5 wt% of a butene-1 copolymer. However, as described above, said range is rendered obvious by Cavalieri (see MPEP 2144.05.I.).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE whose telephone number is (703)756-5376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Jones can be reached at 571-270-7733. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/ROBERT S JONES JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights